Appellant relies upon the case Mara Ramanarasu v. Matta Venkata Reddi(1) but in that case it is pointed out that the promise made by the judgment-debtor was consideration. Here a promise to pay only a part of what is legally due, can afford no consideration for any promise by the decree-holder. Appellant then relies on S. 63 of the Indian Contract Act and contends that no consideration is necessary. That is no doubt true if the decree-holder has actually remitted a portion of the debt due to him and not merely promised to remit it. Actual remission is not completed until he accepts the part payment in full satisfaction. (See illustrations (b)(c)(d) and (e) to the section). For an agreement to remit, consideration is necessary. See Balasundara Naicker v. Ranganatha Aiyar(2). The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
N.R.RAppeal dismissed.